Welcome

Welcome to the POZ Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

Author
Topic: Obama Fails to Lead on AIDS (Read 14807 times)

At least one AIDS organization has the balls to say that the Emperor has no clothes.

Over 250 so-called AIDS leaders are attending a White House reception while over 2,200 are on ADAP waiting lists???!!! That is simply obscene.********************************************************************************President Obama Fails to Lead on AIDS

AIDS Healthcare Foundation will host a press conference Tuesday, July 13th at 3:30 PM Eastern, to criticize President Obama’s National HIV/AIDS Strategy (NHAS) which is being formally released in a White House press conference at 2pm Tuesday. The strategy, 15 months in the making, was crafted as the nation’s AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) the federal and state funded, state run network of programs that supply lifesaving AIDS drugs to low-income Americans in need, collapsed.

WHO: Michael Weinstein, AHF President Tom Myers, General Counsel & Chief of Public Affairs for AHF

CONTACT: Ged Kenslea, (323) 791-5526 Lori Yeghiayan, (323) 377-4312

Obama’s National HIV/AIDS Strategy will be formally released at a White House press conference at 2pm Tuesday, followed by a separate White House reception for 250 or so of the nation’s AIDS leaders at 6pm. Many AIDS organizations and advocates—including AHF—have been disappointed by the laggard approach Obama and Administration officials have toward AIDS. AHF will host its press conference to respond to Obama’s AIDS strategy at 3:30pm at the National Press Club (Murrow Room) nearby.

“The ‘New York Times’ obtained a copy of the President’s AIDS strategy, and from what we’ve learned of it so far, there is really no ‘there’ there,” said Michael Weinstein, President of AIDS Healthcare Foundation. “This strategy is a day late and a dollar short: 15 months in the making, and the White House learned what people in the field have known for years. There is no funding, no ‘how to,’ no real leadership.”

According to a White House press statement, the National HIV/AIDS Strategy “…is a comprehensive plan focused on: 1) reducing the number of people who become infected with HIV, 2) increasing access to care and optimizing health outcomes for people living with HIV, and 3) reducing HIV-related health disparities.”

As of July 9th, there were 2,291 people on waiting lists in 12 states including 605 in Florida—which has the third highest incidence of AIDS in the nation—and which only started its wait list June 1st.

Regarding the 2,200 Americans on waiting lists to receive lifesaving HIV/AIDS medications through the nation’s AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP): In an effort to address the crisis, Senators Burr, Coburn and Enzi introduced S. 3401, the ACCESS ADAP Act, a bill which provides $126 million in unobligated stimulus funds to eliminate waiting lists through Fiscal Year 2010. The bill failed to gain the support of the Administration or Congress. The $126 million was a number provided by state AIDS directors as the amount of additional federal funding required to meet current program needs given the number of people on waiting lists, expected number of new patients and budget cuts per state.

“Under President Obama, the CDC’s landmark—and prudent—2006 guidelines recommending routine testing for HIV for all those ages 13-64 have also not been implemented nor even really prioritized,” added Weinstein. “All around, this is a real disappointment.”

As part of ongoing advocacy efforts to spur President Obama and the Administration to do more on AIDS, AHF is rolling out an ad headlined “Who’s Better on AIDS?” The ad—which will appear in the print and online versions of ‘Politico’ as well as at 16 bus shelter advertisements in Washington near the White House—features a split screen head shot of Presidents Obama and George W. Bush merged into one—half of Obama’s face on the left of the ad, and half of Bush’s on the right. President Bush created PEPFAR (the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief), the successful US global AIDS program, which has also been neglected and underfunded on Obama’s watch.

« Last Edit: July 13, 2010, 07:15:50 AM by edfu »

Logged

"No one will ever be free so long as there are pestilences."--Albert Camus, "The Plague"

"Mankind can never be free until the last brick in the last church falls on the head of the last priest."--Voltaire

“The president’s plan is so flawed that it might actually represent a step backwards in combating HIV and AIDS in the United States,” said Housing Works President and CEO Charles King. “Since his days on the campaign trail, President Obama has repeatedly said that he wants to lead the fight against AIDS. Unless he commits significant new resources intended to make major inroads against the spread of HIV, he will be regarded as a leader who did next to nothing about the most devastating epidemic of our time. The president’s plan sets insufficiently ambitious goals for reducing the number of annual HIV infections in the U.S. while, at the same time, the plan fails to provide adequate funding to reach even the modest HIV prevention and treatment goals that it sets out."

Logged

"No one will ever be free so long as there are pestilences."--Albert Camus, "The Plague"

"Mankind can never be free until the last brick in the last church falls on the head of the last priest."--Voltaire

Why do I feel like there is some very real, entrenched stigma in the USA that ANY administration won't deal universally with HIV.

My recent HIV infection has had some impact on me financially but its very manageable, here in middle of Europe. If I were back home, seems like there is a chance I'd be left for dead - or clubbed into poverty. And its all so fucking unnecessary in a rich country.

Doesn't America see that here is a very nasty disease that can be fought so effectively, and keep down the price of having it, by keeping people healthy and working and living successfully?

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

As someone who initially supported Obama - I have to say that he has been/become a HUGE disappointment. He will most likely be a one-term president. Hillary would have been much better. I just hope his lack of action(s) don't lead us to have a conservative Republican president on the next go round. But, then again, from what I'm seeing, Bush (with all his flaws - and there were many) had a better record on HIV/AIDS funding.

Its freaking bewildering. The Obama administration could just throw an immediate couple of hundred millions into ADAP and be considered the "big man".

I don't get the penny pinching AT ALL. Is it about politics? Is it - god forbid - something symbolic -- "ADAP is welfare" or something like that? - and he doesn't want to support welfare type spending??

It is a pity the black community -- churches and black leaders, for example -- can't directly take Obama on and shame him about this, in addition to the AIDS service community.

I think we need to get people with INFLUENCE and exposure to talk about the ridiculousness of it all. Oprah, etc.

I wonder if Anderson Cooper did a similar story like the one he just did from HAITI - showing warehouses of food undistributed, and kids starving in orphanages. Its not that different. The fucking medicine exists. The sick had nothing to do with the cost of the medicine being so high!! Its sitting on shelves and people are sick. Its so disheartening.

Just a few news shows with reports about people on waiting lists.

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

@ Mecch - Obama has been extremely slow to move on anything connected with gay/lesbian issues - and while HIV/AIDS isn't limited to gays/lesbians, there still is a stigma here in the US that connects it predominantly to gays/lesbians. Obama catered to gays/lesbians during the campaign and has pretty much neglected us since getting elected. Personally, I think there are underlying issues based on rumors that he had same sex encounters when he was using drugs during his youth. I think either him or his advisers are weary of appearing to be too friendly in issues that are even remotely connected or perceived by some to be related to sexual orientation for this reason.

Considering the disproportionate amount of African-Americans with HIV/AIDS you would think that there would be more of an outcry from that community to him; however, it may also be that the black Americans do not want to appear to be "turning" on the first African-American President - or the perception of turning on him. Many of my African-American friends have told me that they voted for him only because of his race and the same friends are very slow to criticize him - if at all.

He's married and has children and is the president of the US. Who cared if he diddled a bit with guys in his wanton youth!

It wouldn't matter to me at all --- I was just pointing out that he has really backed away from being a supporter on issues important to gays/lesbians and there were rumors publicized about youthful experiences - given how politics works here in the US, that may have contributed to some of his back peddling and lack of support/attention to an issue that literally has the potential to result in the senseless deaths of many Americans.

Love you Ms. P (and I am from PA, thus the hit on Philly) --- I will work on my retardedness so as not to be so

So tell me, when the FLORIDA LEGISLATURE cut the STATE portion of ADAP creating a waiting list in Florida, did you get off your sofa and drive up to Tallahassee? Simple yes or no.

Better yet, do you even know that ADAP is funded by BOTH the federal government and the state government? Did Obama get on his knees and give Gov. Christie a juicy blow job to get him to be mean to those pozzie meth heads in Fort Lauderdale right before Gay Pride this year? I bet that's what really happened. I'm glad you cleared this up for everyone tonight.

I guess the serious question is - why are HIV+ people the pawns in a game between who is going to pay for what? Obviously the insurance overhaul isn't going to cure the problem, if the income limits for ADAP and medicaid are so low, but the pooled premiums are so high. States will squeeze, the national government will squeeze, insurance companies will squeeze. HIV+ people will be squeezed dry, fragile, broken, dead.

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

So you can make up to 43k and be covered by ADAP, once you break 43k you now have to pay for the high risk pool which is roughly 6-10k a year, meaning you now drop down to making 33k a year again, so it's in your best interest to stay making 43k a year unless you can go up to 53k a year in one big leap.

So tell me, when the FLORIDA LEGISLATURE cut the STATE portion of ADAP creating a waiting list in Florida, did you get off your sofa and drive up to Tallahassee? Simple yes or no.

Better yet, do you even know that ADAP is funded by BOTH the federal government and the state government? Did Obama get on his knees and give Gov. Christie a juicy blow job to get him to be mean to those pozzie meth heads in Fort Lauderdale right before Gay Pride this year? I bet that's what really happened. I'm glad you cleared this up for everyone tonight.

A) Yes - (didn't drive - but called and wrote actual letters - and still continuing to take action)B) Don't think Gov. Christ got a BJ - but him and the big O did hug - Gov has since became an independent as he is running for SenatorC) Yes - I know ADAP is state and federal funding -- seeing as I work in a governmental agency at the county level and previously worked at state level and did first internship in 1992 at an ASO, I'm pretty familiar with funding streamsD) I'm glad I was able to clear things up for everyone - although, I'm sure there might be an unjustly sarcastic drag queen or two in Philadelphia that feels the need to incendiary in her remarks with no personal provocation for doing so - but then again that may be par for the course.Still love you Big kisses!

So you can make up to 43k and be covered by ADAP, once you break 43k you now have to pay for the high risk pool which is roughly 6-10k a year, meaning you now drop down to making 33k a year again, so it's in your best interest to stay making 43k a year unless you can go up to 53k a year in one big leap.

This makes sense, right?

I know Trey - when I first went on meds I had an appointment for ADAP as my salary was slightly within range - then when I took my new position my salary went way over the cutoff and I had to wait 90 days for insurance to kick in -- I almost wanted to ask my employer to lower my salary to within the limits until my insurance kicked in. -- Definitely doesn't make any sense.

I know Trey - when I first went on meds I had an appointment for ADAP as my salary was slightly within range - then when I took my new position my salary went way over the cutoff and I had to wait 90 days for insurance to kick in -- I almost wanted to ask my employer to lower my salary to within the limits until my insurance kicked in. -- Definitely doesn't make any sense.

How did you get Health Insurance within 90 days of starting a new job with a pre-existing condition?

It was brought up because you dragged in a giant non-sequitor to the thread several posts below, dragging the entire discussion off course.

For that I apologize - I am trying to get it back on course - my bad (Forgive me?) Oh - and just like the phyllo dough, you just had me looking up non-sequitor -- thank you - I always come away learning a new word or two.

At any rate, I was a strong supporter of President Obama and still want to be a strong supporter - I also know that he can't do it alone. Many states are in a financial crisis and we know that the US debt is just unbelievable - there are no easy answers - I guess as the title of the thread states, I am just looking and hoping for the President to take the lead and start generating some real conversation, solutions and resulting actions to alleviate/eliminate this crisis, which has the potential to grow exponentially at a quick rate.

How did you get Health Insurance within 90 days of starting a new job with a pre-existing condition?

Although I didn't have insurance before I took the position (because Ryan White, I guess, is not considered insurance and neither was the hospital system's charity plan) my employer's insurance did not have a Pre-Existing Condition Exclusion Clause - I was very fortunate.

As someone who initially supported Obama - I have to say that he has been/become a HUGE disappointment. He will most likely be a one-term president. Hillary would have been much better. I just hope his lack of action(s) don't lead us to have a conservative Republican president on the next go round. But, then again, from what I'm seeing, Bush (with all his flaws - and there were many) had a better record on HIV/AIDS funding.

Politics is the art of being disappointed. There's an old saying - campaign in poetry but govern in prose.

Obama will be a one term president if liberals like you shit the bed just because things have gotten a bit rough. This is always the problem with the Left in any western democracy.

Moreover I don't understand how you have connected suggestions that Obama may have played the field as a yoof with the idea that he's now gone a bit soft on gay/lesbian or HIV/AIDS issues.

Surely a more reasonable explanation would be that there are mid-term elections later this year and realpolitik dictates minimising opportunities for the lunatic right to energise their base any more than they are already?

Politics is the art of being disappointed. There's an old saying - campaign in poetry but govern in prose.

Obama will be a one term president if liberals like you shit the bed just because things have gotten a bit rough. This is always the problem with the Left in any western democracy.

Moreover I don't understand how you have connected suggestions that Obama may have played the field as a yoof with the idea that he's now gone a bit soft on gay/lesbian or HIV/AIDS issues.

Surely a more reasonable explanation would be that there are mid-term elections later this year and realpolitik dictates minimising opportunities for the lunatic right to energise their base any more than they are already?

MtD

I agree Matty that the November elections play a big part in Obama's decisions - the whole house is up for election, I also think that the feds want to see the states step up --- people here complain about there being too much federal government interference and state's and localiities want to be in control - but when it comes to the financing of needed programs then the states and local governments want the feds to step in (Have their cake and eat it too). No unit of government wants to be the one to raise taxes - especially with elections around the corner. I think Obama is choosing his battles carefully - that said, we typically look to the President to be the leader.

Oh, and by the way, I'm more of a moderate then a liberal. While I voted for Obama - I am a registered Republican - but have never got caught up on the party as much as the stance on the issues. I actually need to change my registration to reflect my stance more which would be independent.

one of the people i know at the dept of health was just telling me that ryan white funds are drying up...can you imagine?

My contacts in the Dept of Homeland Security say that drying up ADAP funding is just a precursor to tapping the phones of pozzies in the interest of national security and placing them all in FEMA concentration camps, once jihadists are evacuated from Guantanemo.

My contacts in the Dept of Homeland Security say that drying up ADAP funding is just a precursor to tapping the phones of pozzies in the interest of national security and placing them all in FEMA concentration camps, once jihadists are evacuated from Guantanemo.

I agree Matty that the November elections play a big part in Obama's decisions - the whole house is up for election, I also think that the feds want to see the states step up --- people here complain about there being too much federal government interference and state's and localiities want to be in control - but when it comes to the financing of needed programs then the states and local governments want the feds to step in (Have their cake and eat it too). No unit of government wants to be the one to raise taxes - especially with elections around the corner. I think Obama is choosing his battles carefully - that said, we typically look to the President to be the leader.

Oh, and by the way, I'm more of a moderate then a liberal. While I voted for Obama - I am a registered Republican - but have never got caught up on the party as much as the stance on the issues. I actually need to change my registration to reflect my stance more which would be independent.

Not just the House, but one third of your Senate too, am I right? I believe there's a particularly nasty Senate race going on in the Great State of Florida right now.

Believe me I appreciate your sense of disappointment. We face a federal election here, probably in the next 6 weeks (the actual date is a matter for the Prime Minister) and naturally the main centre left party (of which I am a member) here is softening on all manner of issues which might freak out the average Australian voter.

But these things are what they are. Surely President Obama is a better option for people like you than that of your own party? How will handing Obama a Congress he simply cannot work with advance the causes (no matter how incrementally) that are important to you?

Not just the House, but one third of your Senate too, am I right? I believe there's a particularly nasty Senate race going on in the Great State of Florida right now.

Believe me I appreciate your sense of disappointment. We face a federal election here, probably in the next 6 weeks (the actual date is a matter for the Prime Minister) and naturally the main centre left party (of which I am a member) here is softening on all manner of issues which might freak out the average Australian voter.

But these things are what they are. Surely President Obama is a better option for people like you than that of your own party? How will handing Obama a Congress he simply cannot work with advance the causes (no matter how incrementally) that are important to you?

MtD

Yes - we do have a nasty senate race here - Governor Christ actually left the Republican party to become an independent - so he could stay in the race.

We would and will definitely fair worse if Republicans take control. Unfortunately, I think they will - which means a lot of the President's agenda (if he is still following one) will not move forward. The economy is still so fragile here that no one in office wants to a) increase spending to meet needs or b) raise taxes. Government can only do so much (at least if people still want to call it a democracy) - There has to be more incentive for private sector to step up, including faith-based organizations, philanthropists, corporate entities...particularly when some are making record profits and the number of individuals with fortunes over $1 billion dollars is steady increasing.

But these things are what they are. Surely President Obama is a better option for people like you than that of your own party? How will handing Obama a Congress he simply cannot work with advance the causes (no matter how incrementally) that are important to you?

MtD

The man shoots, the man scores!

God help me but Matty is absolutely correct.

Let's do away with a couple of misnotions that have been presented here:

1. The President can not simply write a check for $200. million dollars and make this problem go away, as one member suggested. He has limited ability to ask his various cabinet members to transfer funds from one program to another as a stop gap measure. But when it comes to actual appropriations? The President submits a budget and congress passes on it after they've had their say.

2. ADAP (as Philly so rightlfully pointed out) is a joint operation between the Federal Government and the State Governmrents. The problem here doesn't rest solely with the Federal side, there is equal responsibility on the State side. I suspect that those states with the longest waiting lists are located somewhere in the red area.

3. The President could ask congress for an emergency appropriation to help through this crisis. It would NEVER pass the Senate (as Matty alluded to) in an election year. I'm not even certain it would get through the house.

So when I read things like "Obama fails to lead", "Obama will be a one term President", I can only roll my eyes and say "what the hell are you people thinking?".

Suggesting that George W. Bush was better?

Drinking from the Kool-Aid and saying it's all about some sort of conspiracy to cover up these (never heard them before) rumors that he dallied with a man or two?

Give me a frickin break.

If you want to have a serious conversation then I'm all for it.

But in order to do so we have to focus on the facts of how our government decides to spend money.

To pile on the President for things that are essentially out of his control, who's responsibility rests primarily with Congress, to suggest . . . . .oh shit I just give up!

This is NOT precisely a failure of leadership (though I too am frustrated), this is the reality of the American political system.

Yes - we do have a nasty senate race here - Governor Christ actually left the Republican party to become an independent - so he could stay in the race.

We would and will definitely fair worse if Republicans take control. Unfortunately, I think they will - which means a lot of the President's agenda (if he is still following one) will not move forward.

Then the prospect of a Republican take over of the Congress should motivate you to action. You have a vote, consider carefully how you will cast that vote. Gird loins, steel yourself for the fight ahead - that sort of stuff.

Remember that elections are won by those who turn up.

I think Crist is probably more of a problem for the Democrats than the GOP - he seems to be positioning himself in the centre somewhere, so I'm thinking he's more likely to nab votes from nervous Demonkrats than the other lot.

But I could be wrong there. He might just lock up the moderate Republicans. Your first past the post voting system confuses me - so I'll leave my uninformed speculation at that.

At some point Crist will have to say which party he will caucus with should he win the race. He'll say Democrats I suspect, as that's most of what he's siphoning off to be winning in polling right now (though only by 2 points), and once he says that he'll pull in any Dems sitting on the fence except the hardcore Meek supporters.

Regarding the 2,200 Americans on waiting lists to receive lifesaving HIV/AIDS medications through the nation’s AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP): In an effort to address the crisis, Senators Burr, Coburn and Enzi introduced S. 3401, the ACCESS ADAP Act, a bill which provides $126 million in unobligated stimulus funds to eliminate waiting lists through Fiscal Year 2010. The bill failed to gain the support of the Administration or Congress. The $126 million was a number provided by state AIDS directors as the amount of additional federal funding required to meet current program needs given the number of people on waiting lists, expected number of new patients and budget cuts per state.

Those three senators are Republicans. If Obama chose to lead, instead of just to speak, his support for S. 3401 would have been enough to convince Congress, even the Senate. It is naive to think that the House would not also have supported the emergency appropriation. Why did he not support S. 3401? He foolishly attempted so many times to achieve nonpartisan support for so many of his goals and ended up severely watering down all of them, when it was obviously apparent to everyone but him that the Republicans would always vote no. S. 3401 could have been a significant nonpartisan action, and he failed to follow through--because the compromise didn't originate with him?

Logged

"No one will ever be free so long as there are pestilences."--Albert Camus, "The Plague"

"Mankind can never be free until the last brick in the last church falls on the head of the last priest."--Voltaire

Those three senators are Republicans. If Obama chose to lead, instead of just to speak, his support for S. 3401 would have been enough to convince Congress, even the Senate. It is naive to think that the House would not also have supported the emergency appropriation. Why did he not support S. 3401? He foolishly attempted so many times to achieve nonpartisan support for so many of his goals and ended up severely watering down all of them, when it was obviously apparent to everyone but him that the Republicans would always vote no. S. 3401 could have been a significant nonpartisan action, and he failed to follow through--because the compromise didn't originate with him?

Tell us why Pelosi didn't support it either and you'll have your answer, Edina.

Nancy Pelosi--who is afraid of the Tea Baggers in spite of the fact that her San Francisco district has one of the highest HIV-infection rates in the country--is not the President of the United States, who has executive powers and a "bully pulpit" she does not have. Unfortunately, the current President does not know how--or refuses--to use that "bully pulpit." We have seen this time and time again. That is precisely why he is not a leader but only an orator.

Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin, and many other members of the House, sent a letter to the White House, urging support for the emergency appropriation. The only response they received was a promise to increase federal ADAP funding beginning with June 2011! If the Administration supported the bill, it would easily have passed the House, Pelosi nonwithstanding. There were enough Democrats who supported it, and there were enough House Republicans who would have done so, especially since the emergency appropriation originated with Republicans in the Senate.

It is sad to see you offering so many excuses, time and time again, for a tragic failure of leadership when so many lives are at stake.

Logged

"No one will ever be free so long as there are pestilences."--Albert Camus, "The Plague"

"Mankind can never be free until the last brick in the last church falls on the head of the last priest."--Voltaire

No one thinks Obama is God, perfect, or able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. We do, however, expect him to at least try to accomplish the goals he set out for himself during the campaign. People are not upset with President Obama because he didn't accomplish everything. They are upset that he often doesn't seem to try to get the most out of a deal. He settles for less at the outset, when the political dynamic would have permitted him to get far more than what he settled for.

Yes, now the President isn't doing very well in the polls, and the Democrats in Congress are running scared. But it wasn't always this way. A good year-plus ago, when we were first talking about a stimulus and health care reform, the President was at 70% in the polls, the Dems in Congerss were riding high, and the Republicans were on the verge of committing mass suicide. There was no excuse, then, for settling for a weaker stimulus than was needed (the results of which, nearly 10% unemployment, are dogging us all today). And there was no need to shove the public option overboard from the outset (the President made clear that he wasn't going to demand its inclusion). So while it's convenient to argue that "now" the President has no choice but to compromise, he had a choice a year ago, and he compromised at the git-go anyway. It's who he is as a person, and it's the reason so many are so frustrated. (And one could argue that a good part of the reason the Democrats are in such trouble today is because of the President's penchant for capitulation.)

This isn't about people's unacceptably high expectations. We simply expected him to try to do what he promised.

Logged

"No one will ever be free so long as there are pestilences."--Albert Camus, "The Plague"

"Mankind can never be free until the last brick in the last church falls on the head of the last priest."--Voltaire

Aside from the fact that you repeat verbatim what you read on Americablog in your 2nd post just now, down to the actual sentence structure, your question previously was "Why did he not support S. 3401?" My comment bringing Pelosi into the equation is relevant, but only if you look at the larger picture. To use stimulus money for this, as championed by Republicans, who champion such maneuvers every week (think unemployment extension currently) would open a Pandora's box, especially when there's speculation of a double dip recession and would therefore exhaust this. This is why nobody in a leadership position is willing to do it, instead they'll dribble out money like they did in June ($30 million) and 2 weeks ago ($25 million) in an effort to increase pressure for a supplemental appropriation.

However, keep in mind that this can't prevent a governor like Christie from lowering eligibility rates and cutting the state portion of ADAP. In fact, one could make the argument that's exactly WHY he did with eligibility rates instead of a simple waiting list, because then when funds are further freed up he doesn't have to return rates to what they were previously. In order to prevent such things one would have to re-write the entire ADAP legislation from scratch and federalize the entire program, which of course is exactly what's needed to avoid continual problems every time there's a recession. As I'm sure a retired curmudgeon like you may recall, there was this same issue with waiting lists just seven years ago after the dot.com recession.

It's not a matter of being an apologist, it's a matter of seeing the forest for the trees.

I haven't taken Klonopin in over a year. Even when I was, I was taking only a miniscule 1 mg. per day, prescribed by my NYC psychiatrist, who said it would "take the rough edges away." All I take now is Seroquel, which works for my serious insomnia, exacerbated by the ageist promulgations from the likes of you, who haven't met a drug you haven't been able to convert to serious "recreational" excesses. Perhaps when you're free of drug abuse, we can have a rational conversation.

Logged

"No one will ever be free so long as there are pestilences."--Albert Camus, "The Plague"

"Mankind can never be free until the last brick in the last church falls on the head of the last priest."--Voltaire

The economy is still so fragile here that no one in office wants to a) increase spending to meet needs or b) raise taxes. Government can only do so much (at least if people still want to call it a democracy) - There has to be more incentive for private sector to step up, including faith-based organizations, philanthropists, corporate entities...particularly when some are making record profits and the number of individuals with fortunes over $1 billion dollars is steady increasing.

What crap!

1) A social welfare state can be sustained if spending is cut elsewhere - MILITARY! And revenues are raised - TAX THE RICH.

2) Americans ARE a generous lot of people, compared to other first world countries. But churches, foundations, charity --- its obviously not going to add up to a safety net, anymore, if indeed there ever was one, in some dewy eyed American myth about the past.

3) Its hideously laughable to suggest that corporations in the 21st century will take on any responsibility for the well-being of their own workers, let alone society at large!!!! Local business maybe, but not big corporations, which see themselves as International and not bound or responsible to ANY local or national population - only to a global group of shareholders.

There are really only simple things to do and American goverment can't muster the integrity to alter its identity a little bit Reign in Corporate Greed by regulation and taxation. Tax the rich. Find other tax revenues (perhaps a way to tax conspicuous consumption of....)Legislate social equality and basic human rights (livable wage, health care, education)Spend less on the military.

It really is not rocket science.

_______Well my silly "marxist" rant aside, I agree with RAP et al on the intricacies of how to address the challenge in the reality of executive versus legislative branch, and national versus states. I do however also agree there is a question of leadership and the bully pulpit and the current role of the President in "leading" the way to a more equitable distribution of a great country's wealth. The public option case in point. As it stands, too many people in the USA get the shaft on a number of human rights and civil rights. _______

1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

_______

Since the drugs exists - it would seem that there is a human right to the medicine, since they are part of the standard of care in the person's country and contribute to an adequate standard of living.

« Last Edit: July 15, 2010, 07:24:08 AM by mecch »

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

1) A social welfare state can be sustained if spending is cut elsewhere - MILITARY! And revenues are raised - TAX THE RICH.

Anyone who thinks that the US is going to create a social welfare state in the mold of many European countries is clearly living in a dream world. Right or wrong -- it simply is not EVER going to happen. Yes, we are closer to it than many would like to admit, but we aren't going to get there. Military spending can and should be cut -- but not gutted like most of the far left would like -- nor should it be. If the US DID severely cut it's military, Europe would scream because then they would all have to start spending more in order to insure that their "foreign priorities" were protected. Finally, the "TAX THE RICH" shrill is getting old. It is to the far left what the "NO NEW TAXES" is to the right. Simply put -- a wrong headed approach. Should the well-off pay some more -- yes. Should everyone else pay some more too -- YES. Should we actually look into spending cuts (not just military) and increasing revenue -- YES. The first line for both sides is to have the OTHER SIDE shoulder the pain. This has to stop or we will continue to get what we've been getting -- NOTHING.

I know this was off the OP topic -- but I go crazy when I read people who don't actually live in anything near an actual reality.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts